Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Compare Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B, both from Qwen, context windows of 262K vs 262K, tested across 53 shared challenges. Updated May 2026.
Which is better, Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B or Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B?
Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B are both competitive models. Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B costs $0.4/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B. Context windows: 262K vs 262K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B is made by qwen while Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B is from qwen. Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B has a 262K token context window compared to Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B's 262K. On pricing, Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B costs $0.4/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B.
Per 1M tokens
Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B is cheaper on both — 1.5× input, 1.1× output
No community votes yet. On paper, Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B has the edge — bigger model tier.
Style Comparison
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B uses 2.2x more emoji
